From: IN%"Canidresearch@aol.com" 1-MAR-2004 09:29:47.60
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Internship Opportunity
Interested in learning about applied animal behavior programs in the animal sheltering field? This program is designed to train interns so that, upon completion of their Masters or Ph.D., they are better qualified for certification as a behaviorist, and ready to enter the growing sheltering field. Interns will be involved in research, program development, meetings with clients, and phone help lines. Interns will also work one-on-one with shelter residents, conduct workshops and assist in training staff.
Requirements: Masters or Ph.D. level students only. GPA of 3.4 or better. Must have completed courses in learning theory, animal behavior and psychobiology or biological psychology. Experience in animal training is strongly recommended, as is a working knowledge of canines and felines.
Interns will work under the direction of Emily Weiss, Ph.D., Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, and will be living in Milwaukee during the internship. Modest stipend and funds for housing are available. For more information contact Emily Weiss at weiss@emilyweiss.com or (316) 778-1991
--
Emily Weiss, Ph.D.
Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist
www.emilyweiss.com
(316) 778-1991
Providing Positive Humane Solutions
From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 2-MAR-2004 09:45:54.99
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: references on guard animals used with sheep
Hello all,
I am a postdoctoral fellow at Michigan State University working on animal
welfare. Currently, my colleagues and I are teaching an undergraduate course
in animal behavior and welfare that involves a class project requiring the
students to design and execute a behavioral experiment. The class has
decided to examine whether sheep perceive donkeys and llamas as guard
animals.
Does anyone have any references regarding the use of donkeys and llamas in
this capacity and their interactions with sheep as well as ethograms that
might be useful? I very much appreciate your help.
Cheers,
Janice Siegford, PhD
Animal Behavior and Welfare Group
1287C Anthony Hall
Department of Animal Science
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-432-8212 office
517-432-1396 lab
517-353-1699 fax
From: IN%"siegford@msu.edu" "Janice M Siegford" 5-MAR-2004 12:46:57.47
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: 3rd Annual Animal Welfare Judging Competition Today
Hello all,
Today Michigan State University hosts the 3rd Annual Animal Welfare judging
competition. This year students from 8 universities across the United States
are competing in individual and team categories and their assessments of
welfare scenarios and presentations of reasons for asessing them are being
given to internationally know welfare experts.
Please follow either of the links below to learn more about the conference
and to see updates on the results as they are posted.
http://www.ans.msu.edu/
http://www.canr.msu.edu/dept/ans/index.html
Cheers,
Janice Siegford, PhD
Animal Behavior and Welfare Group
1287C Anthony Hall
Department of Animal Science
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
517-432-8212 office
517-432-1396 lab
517-353-1699 fax
From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 10-MAR-2004 10:37:59.82
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Instinct vs Cognition
What are the principles by which ethologists determine whether a behavior is
instinctive vs. learned vs. figured out? I suspect that most sophisticated
behaviors probably have some of all three, how do you tease apart their
respective contributions.
Thanks
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 10-MAR-2004 10:55:32.13
To: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
This is an interesting question. We (ethologists) don't really ask this=20=
question anymore. Ethologists and animal psychologists met half way in=20=
the 60's and 70's on this issue. In fact, it is a Canadian=20
psychologist, Donald Hebb, that answered the question the best. He=20
would often answer to the question, "which proportion of this behaviour=20=
is innate and which is learned", "100% learned and 100% innate". If the=20=
person was not satisfied with the answer, he would proceed to explain=20
that it is like trying to determine which parameter is most important=20
in determining the area of a football field: the length, or the width?
95% of biologists and psychologists I know subscribe to this=20
perspective (although it does not prevent some introductory behavioural=20=
biology or psychology textbooks to bring up the nature-nurture=20
"debate"). The epigenetic movement truly helped in defining this trend=20=
in thinking. It is also often illustrated with the following formula: =20=
Phenotype =3D Genotype + Environment + (Genotype x Environment). In=20
other words, the phenotype (behaviour, biochemistry, physiology,=20
anatomy, morphology) is determined by the environment, the genes, and=20
the interaction of the two.
Now, to be honest, there are experimental ways to determine or confirm=20=
the contribution of genes, or the environment. Behavioural genetics=20
(represented mainly by psychologists) uses cross-fostering experiments=20=
to show that, for example, mice pups raised female rats are less=20
aggressive than mice pups raised by mice (mice are less social than=20
rats, also more aggressive and mice pups don't play, rat pups do). Now=20=
in this last example, there are other factors that could explain the=20
change in behaviour (such as the composition of the maternal milk,=20
etc...).
Using hybrids is another way: Dilger's lovebirds nest building=20
behaviour is by far the most fascinating in my opinion, showing that=20
hybrids, at least temporarily, seem to "get stuck" in confusion between=20=
the behavioural patterns of the 2 species (Fisher lovebirds and=20
Peach-faced lovebirds). Other techniques include selective breeding,=20
development of mutants, etc...
Since I am not sure this is answering your question as you expected, I=20=
will stop here and not develop the examples, but let me know if that is=20=
satisfactory or not.
S. Gadbois
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
Ethology & behavioural endocrinology
On 10-Mar-04, at 12:37 PM, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
> What are the principles by which ethologists determine whether a=20
> behavior is instinctive vs. learned vs. figured out? I=A0suspect that=20=
> most sophisticated behaviors probably have some of all three, how do=20=
> you tease apart their respective contributions.
> =A0
> Thanks
From: IN%"jamesm@twp.west-bloomfield.mi.us" "Jim McNellis" 10-MAR-2004 12:14:43.28
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Animal Welfare
Hello,
Does anyone have access to either of the following:
1. Data measuring stress levels of circus animals (due to transport,
training, confinement, etc.).
2. Public opinion polls about animal welfare or animal rights.
Thanks!
From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 11-MAR-2004 04:44:31.73
To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
Hi Simon. Are you aware of Seligman's "preparedness" hypothesis of 1970? =
I
have a Staffordshire Terrier who yawns for food!!! His name is Sargeant =
Slug
and he yawns for dates. I have it on video. He took only a few days to
teach, in fact he was easier to teach to yawn than to teach to sit. =
Perhaps
some dogs are better "prepared" to learn to yawn than to sit?
Jackie Perkins
Veterinary Behaviour Consulting
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org]=20
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:55 AM
To: Michalchik@aol.com
Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
This is an interesting question. We (ethologists) don't really ask this
question anymore. Ethologists and animal psychologists met half way in the
60's and 70's on this issue. In fact, it is a Canadian psychologist, Donald
Hebb, that answered the question the best. He would often answer to the
question, "which proportion of this behaviour is innate and which is
learned", "100% learned and 100% innate". If the person was not satisfied
with the answer, he would proceed to explain that it is like trying to
determine which parameter is most important in determining the area of a
football field: the length, or the width?
95% of biologists and psychologists I know subscribe to this perspective
(although it does not prevent some introductory behavioural biology or
psychology textbooks to bring up the nature-nurture "debate"). The
epigenetic movement truly helped in defining this trend in thinking. It is
also often illustrated with the following formula: Phenotype =3D Genotype +
Environment + (Genotype x Environment). In other words, the phenotype
(behaviour, biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, morphology) is determined by
the environment, the genes, and the interaction of the two.
Now, to be honest, there are experimental ways to determine or confirm the
contribution of genes, or the environment. Behavioural genetics (represented
mainly by psychologists) uses cross-fostering experiments to show that, for
example, mice pups raised female rats are less aggressive than mice pups
raised by mice (mice are less social than rats, also more aggressive and
mice pups don't play, rat pups do). Now in this last example, there are
other factors that could explain the change in behaviour (such as the
composition of the maternal milk, etc...).
Using hybrids is another way: Dilger's lovebirds nest building behaviour is
by far the most fascinating in my opinion, showing that hybrids, at least
temporarily, seem to "get stuck" in confusion between the behavioural
patterns of the 2 species (Fisher lovebirds and Peach-faced lovebirds).
Other techniques include selective breeding, development of mutants, etc...
Since I am not sure this is answering your question as you expected, I will
stop here and not develop the examples, but let me know if that is
satisfactory or not.
S. Gadbois
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
Ethology & behavioural endocrinology
On 10-Mar-04, at 12:37 PM, Michalchik@aol.com wrote:
What are the principles by which ethologists determine whether a =
behavior is
instinctive vs. learned vs. figured out? I=A0suspect that most =
sophisticated
behaviors probably have some of all three, how do you tease apart their
respective contributions.
=A0
Thanks
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 11-MAR-2004 07:08:01.53
To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
On 11-Mar-04, at 6:43 AM, Geiger wrote:
> Hi Simon. Are you aware of Seligman's "preparedness" hypothesis of
> 1970? I
> have a Staffordshire Terrier who yawns for food!!! His name is
> Sargeant Slug
> and he yawns for dates. I have it on video. He took only a few days to
> teach, in fact he was easier to teach to yawn than to teach to sit.
> Perhaps
> some dogs are better "prepared" to learn to yawn than to sit?
Seligman's preparedness was suggesting a predisposition at the species
level. By suggesting "some dogs" you are suggesting an individual level
predisposition. But maybe... All I can think of is the propensity
wolves (including ours) have to yawn, but interestingly, in wolves,
this is a sign of stress (positive, such as "excitement" or negative):
My dogs start yawning compulsively when we get them in the car, they
know we are going for a ride. Now Sargeant Slug may naturally get a bit
overexcited by treats? If so, you were in fact a few dates away from
conditioning this behaviour. Very interesting though. Is that video
digitized? You should put it on the web!
Simon
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
Ethology & behavioural endocrinology
From: IN%"johva@ifm.liu.se" "Johanna =?UNKNOWN?Q?V=E4isainen?=" 11-MAR-2004 09:25:01.39
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: reference; Arey & Dale, 1993
Dear all,
I am looking for the full reference to the above. Could somebody help?
Johanna Väsänen
______________________________________________________
Johanna Väisänen, PhD student in Ethology
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
University of Maryland
College Park
MD 20740
US
Phone: +301-405-7988
Mobile: +358-40-7462498
Email:johanna.vaisanen@ifm.liu.se
From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 11-MAR-2004 18:30:00.76
To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
The recording is digitized, and I am making 1-2 new recordings each week to
diarise Sargeant Slug's progress. He has been in yawn training for just 2
weeks and is becoming rather good at it. My other Staffie seems to be
learning it too, though more slowly. I would like to put it on the web for
scrutiny as I am confident of the learned nature of the behaviour. I am
unsure how to go about it in the best way and have sent footage to Robert
Holmes in Melbourne, he is my mentor. Perhaps I could attach it to the
Applied Ethology site?
Whatever a dog's motive is for performing any behaviour, becomes irrelevant
once they do it on cue.
I would like to put the onus back on "preparedness" to prove that my dog is
doing it because he is excited.
He may have been initially; who knows? He now does it on command.
I daresay the difficulty in teaching a dog to yawn on cue is more a
practical difficulty than in principle, because it can be a difficult
behaviour to illicit to reward then put on cue.
Jackie Perkins
Veterinary Behaviour Consulting
GOOD DOG
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 11:08 PM
To: Geiger
Cc: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
On 11-Mar-04, at 6:43 AM, Geiger wrote:
> Hi Simon. Are you aware of Seligman's "preparedness" hypothesis of
> 1970? I
> have a Staffordshire Terrier who yawns for food!!! His name is
> Sargeant Slug
> and he yawns for dates. I have it on video. He took only a few days to
> teach, in fact he was easier to teach to yawn than to teach to sit.
> Perhaps
> some dogs are better "prepared" to learn to yawn than to sit?
Seligman's preparedness was suggesting a predisposition at the species
level. By suggesting "some dogs" you are suggesting an individual level
predisposition. But maybe... All I can think of is the propensity
wolves (including ours) have to yawn, but interestingly, in wolves,
this is a sign of stress (positive, such as "excitement" or negative):
My dogs start yawning compulsively when we get them in the car, they
know we are going for a ride. Now Sargeant Slug may naturally get a bit
overexcited by treats? If so, you were in fact a few dates away from
conditioning this behaviour. Very interesting though. Is that video
digitized? You should put it on the web!
Simon
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
Ethology & behavioural endocrinology
From: IN%"s4008889@student.uq.edu.au" 11-MAR-2004 18:57:18.69
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Problematic Dog Barking
Hi, I am currently doing an honours research project on Problem barking in
dogs. I am conducting a survey to determine risk (environmental) factors, such
as whether the dog lives in the house, did the dog come from a rescue shelter
etc.
I would be interested in any input/thoughts anyone has on possible risk factors
for problem barking. I am generally breaking questions into two groups,
relating to the dog (breed, age, gender), and relating to environment (house,
people in house etc.)
Also what would you consider to be a "problem" barker?
I would be happy to send a copy of my results when finished to anyone
interested.
Thanks
Kim
From: IN%"V.Sandilands@au.sac.ac.uk" 12-MAR-2004 05:07:37.08
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: australian radio interview
Dear all,
Interesting radio interview transcript with John Webster, Don Broom,
Temple Grandin and more, on farm animal slaughter etc.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1043732.htm
Regards,
Vicky
Dr. Victoria Sandilands
Avian Science Research Centre/Animal Nutrition & Health
Animal Health Group
Scottish Agricultural College
Ayr, KA6 5HW, UK
tel +44 (0)1292 525421
fax +44 (0)1292 525098
http://www.sac.ac.uk/animal/External/ABDWeb/Avian/Default.htm
The information in this e.mail is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this e.mail by anyone
else is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or
advice contained in this e.mail are subject to the terms and conditions
expressed in the governing client engagement letter.
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 12-MAR-2004 11:03:51.41
To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger"
CC: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
Just to make sure you agree I was not stumping on your ideas:
On 11-Mar-04, at 8:25 PM, Geiger wrote:
> I would like to put it on the web for
> scrutiny as I am confident of the learned nature of the behaviour.
I think you are right, no problems believing it is now.
> Whatever a dog's motive is for performing any behaviour, becomes
> irrelevant
> once they do it on cue.
Motivation can still modulate the intensity or frequency of the
response. Dogs are so enthusiastic learners that we often forget this.
Laboratory studies with rats more intuitively remind us off their
sensitivity to early motivations. But I think I get your point, I am
reacting to the idea (that you may not be suggesting here) of "always
irrelevant".
> I would like to put the onus back on "preparedness" to prove that my
> dog is
> doing it because he is excited.
> He may have been initially; who knows?
And that is what I was suggesting.
> He now does it on command.
Yes, that is quite amazing. But you don't have to convince me! I am
just curious to see it.
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
Ethology & behavioural endocrinology
From: IN%"mappleby@hsus.org" "Michael Appleby" 12-MAR-2004 11:26:33.60
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Problematic Dog Barking
Dear Kim et al.
One risk factor is certainly ignorance or thoughtlessness of the humans
concerned. Some time ago I wrote the following:
"People's failure to train their dogs properly is generally a mixture of
laziness and ignorance, yet it has huge effects on their lives. A
neighbour of ours is currently training her dog, unwittingly but
systematically, to bark in the garden. Every time he barks she gives
him a biscuit to shut him up. Not surprisingly, he does it again before
long. Where will it end? With him being shut in the house all day, or
de-barked surgically?"
Similarly, people often unintentionally train their dog to bark for
longer and longer periods to be let into the house: at first they let
the dog in immediately it barks, then they delay letting it in for
longer and longer. They do so because they don't want it to bark, but
the effect is the opposite.
There can also be bad luck. A colleague once said he had an embarassing
story to tell. He had let his two dogs into the house the previous
evening - or so he thought - and was then annoyed by someone's dog
barking outside all night. In the morning he discovered that it was in
fact his own dachshund: the labrador had come in, but he had failed to
notice that the dachshund hadn't come in with it. And because he thought
it was inside, and had rarely heard it barking, he hadn't recognised its
bark. As he left the house for work, one of his neighbours said "Did you
hear that dog barking all night?" and he had been too ashamed to own up,
saying "Yes, awful, wasn't it?"
Mike
Michael C. Appleby (Dr)
Vice-President
Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA
Switchboard 1 202 452 1100
Direct 1 301 258 3111
Fax 1 301 258 3081
Email mappleby@hsus.org
-----Original Message-----
From: s4008889@student.uq.edu.au [mailto:s4008889@student.uq.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:57 PM
To: Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Problematic Dog Barking
Hi, I am currently doing an honours research project on Problem barking
in
dogs. I am conducting a survey to determine risk (environmental)
factors, such
as whether the dog lives in the house, did the dog come from a rescue
shelter
etc.
I would be interested in any input/thoughts anyone has on possible risk
factors
for problem barking. I am generally breaking questions into two groups,
relating to the dog (breed, age, gender), and relating to environment
(house,
people in house etc.)
Also what would you consider to be a "problem" barker?
I would be happy to send a copy of my results when finished to anyone
interested.
Thanks
Kim
From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 12-MAR-2004 22:44:07.41
To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
Our other dog started yawning for dates too, so I will video them both
tomorrow early am. Very early morning is the only good time to train,
because it is still hot enough to cause the dogs to pant and be sleepy after
8-9am. A panting dog does not want to yawn; understandable.
This morning Sargie saw Greg, my husband, eating jam tart, and wanted some.
Sargie went over to Greg, sat in front of him, and commenced yawning in an
effort to solicit jam tart. Greg initially just patted him and gave verbal
praise, but Sargie persisted with good big yawns so Greg gave him some jam
tart. It is early in yawn training at this stage, so it was the best thing
to do.
Funny dogs!
Regards,
Jackie Perkins
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 2:49 AM
To: Geiger
Cc: Applied-ethology@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
Just to make sure you agree I was not stumping on your ideas:
On 11-Mar-04, at 8:25 PM, Geiger wrote:
> I would like to put it on the web for
> scrutiny as I am confident of the learned nature of the behaviour.
I think you are right, no problems believing it is now.
> Whatever a dog's motive is for performing any behaviour, becomes
> irrelevant
> once they do it on cue.
Motivation can still modulate the intensity or frequency of the
response. Dogs are so enthusiastic learners that we often forget this.
Laboratory studies with rats more intuitively remind us off their
sensitivity to early motivations. But I think I get your point, I am
reacting to the idea (that you may not be suggesting here) of "always
irrelevant".
> I would like to put the onus back on "preparedness" to prove that my
> dog is
> doing it because he is excited.
> He may have been initially; who knows?
And that is what I was suggesting.
> He now does it on command.
Yes, that is quite amazing. But you don't have to convince me! I am
just curious to see it.
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
Ethology & behavioural endocrinology
From: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com" 12-MAR-2004 23:03:08.81
To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au", IN%"simon@gadbois.org", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
Why are yawns an importent behavior to train?
From: IN%"bmccowan@vmtrc.ucdavis.edu" "Brenda McCowan" 13-MAR-2004 17:59:07.83
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Software for calculating dominance ranking
Applied Ethology Group:
I am interested to know if there are any windows-based software programs
that can calculate dominance rank based upon win-lose interactions.
Thanks for your help in advance!
Brenda McCowan
Brenda McCowan, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor
VMTRC-UC Davis
18830 Road 112
Tulare, CA 93274
Phone: 559-688-1731 ext. 264
Fax: 559-686-4231
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 13-MAR-2004 19:50:08.51
To: IN%"bmccowan@vmtrc.ucdavis.edu" "Brenda McCowan"
CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Software for calculating dominance ranking
I believe "The Observer" by Noldus does this quite well on the PC.
Determining who wins and who loses is not the right way to determine
dominance hierarchies. See Martin and Bateson (1993) for the right
method.
The point is this: A beta animal can win more fights than a dominant
animal (alpha), but the alpha as won fights against all other
individuals in the group. Martin and Bateson give an excellent
demonstration of this in their book based on numerous papers on the
topic.
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
(Neuro)ethology & behavioural endocrinology
On 13-Mar-04, at 7:58 PM, Brenda McCowan wrote:
> Applied Ethology Group:
>
> I am interested to know if there are any windows-based software
> programs
> that can calculate dominance rank based upon win-lose interactions.
>
> Thanks for your help in advance!
>
> Brenda McCowan
>
> Brenda McCowan, Ph.D.
> Assistant Research Professor
> VMTRC-UC Davis
> 18830 Road 112
> Tulare, CA 93274
> Phone: 559-688-1731 ext. 264
> Fax: 559-686-4231
>
From: IN%"wheep@quicksilver.net.nz" "Andy Beck" 13-MAR-2004 20:02:43.91
To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Software for calculating dominance ranking
I second Simon's comments - in many cases 'dominance' is an overly
simplistic method of analysing status - most particularly when the win/lose
measure is used. Use of such a single indicator would suggest that dominance
or status must in every case be supported or established by physical
aggression rather than by social consensus - yet this is not the case in all
species.
Regards
Andy Beck
P.S. My e-mail address is changing to wheep@quicksilver.net.nz
The old address will still work until the end of March.
White Horse Equine Ethology Project
433 Wharepunga Rd
RD3 Kaikohe
Northland
Aotearoa - New Zealand
http://www.equine-behavior.com
http://www.equine-social-behavior.org
http://www.equine-ethology.ac.nz
http://www.sport-horses.co.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org]
Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2004 2:50 p.m.
To: Brenda McCowan
Cc: applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Software for calculating dominance ranking
I believe "The Observer" by Noldus does this quite well on the PC.
Determining who wins and who loses is not the right way to determine
dominance hierarchies. See Martin and Bateson (1993) for the right
method.
The point is this: A beta animal can win more fights than a dominant
animal (alpha), but the alpha as won fights against all other
individuals in the group. Martin and Bateson give an excellent
demonstration of this in their book based on numerous papers on the
topic.
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
(Neuro)ethology & behavioural endocrinology
On 13-Mar-04, at 7:58 PM, Brenda McCowan wrote:
> Applied Ethology Group:
>
> I am interested to know if there are any windows-based software
> programs
> that can calculate dominance rank based upon win-lose interactions.
>
> Thanks for your help in advance!
>
> Brenda McCowan
>
> Brenda McCowan, Ph.D.
> Assistant Research Professor
> VMTRC-UC Davis
> 18830 Road 112
> Tulare, CA 93274
> Phone: 559-688-1731 ext. 264
> Fax: 559-686-4231
>
From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 14-MAR-2004 15:26:09.72
To: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
If you source and read a psychology paper by Seligman titled "On the
generality of the laws of learning" in the psychological review vol77 1970,
he defines a theory called "preparedness". According to preparedness dogs
are unable to learn to yawn on command for food because they lack a
voluntary circuit for it. Preparedness theory puts up all kinds of baseless
boundaries to training. It is an old hat theory, and it is time we laid it
to rest. I believe almost anything is possible, especially in a species as
various as canids. My dogs never cease to amaze me.
Preparedness is a given, when you read any training text or academic
article. Why????? Both of my dogs now yawn well for food. The younger dog,
Blade, has eclipsed Sargie now, to my surprise, though she hardly ever
yawned before; ie her baseline levels of yawning were very very low. The
footage will be available soon, when Robert Holmes is satisfied with the
footage.
I put the onus back on preparedness theory supports to PROVE PREPAREDNESS.
I am running a Veterinary Behaviour Discussion Group at my home in Brisbane
7pm Tuesday 30th March for locals to view the footage, discuss the demise of
preparedness, and meet the dogs. I do not expect the dogs to perform with a
house full of strangers, though Blade has a better chance than Sargie. There
will be plenty of video footage being shown.
Regards,
Jackie Perkins
Veterinary Behaviour Consulting GOOD DOG
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:02 PM
To: gooddog@dodo.com.au; simon@gadbois.org; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
Why are yawns an importent behavior to train?
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 14-MAR-2004 16:10:50.14
To: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger"
CC: IN%"Michalchik@aol.com", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
Let's not forget that like any theories, the preparedness theory has
evolved considerably since 1970. Many people claim they managed to
train raccoons doing what Breland and Breland said was impossible
(e.g., drop a coin in a Piggy Bank). The preparedness theory does apply
very well to most species I worked with, in the sense that it basically
claims that not everything can be trained, especially if the behaviour
is not functionally adaptive to the species. Let's not forget also that
dogs are domesticated animals and many domesticated animals show
behaviours (learned or not) that their wild counterparts can't even
begin to display.
Many people will suggest that wolves (even if tamed) don't learn half
as well as dogs (with numerous exceptions, obviously) although they
tend to out-do dogs in problem solving tasks (e.g., Frank).
Based on the current and old literature on preparedness, we need a lot
more than a dog yawning on command to put that theory to rest. That is
a very behaviouristic (as in Behaviourism) statement. Preparedness is
actually very much supported by biologists in a modern version often
labelled "biological constraints on learning" where examples abound of
behaviours that we would like to teach wild animals but are so contrary
to their behavioural repertoire (instinct, innate behaviour patterns,
call them what you want) that they can't learn it. Sorry to sound
suddenly less enthusiastic, but I get very suspicious when theories are
attacked so swiftly. I actually gave what I consider a good reason why
this may not have been so difficult for a dog to associate the
"excitement yawning" with food. Seligman did not need to be right about
everything. Yet, globally, the theory today still holds, starting with
the "language instinct" movement in linguistics and psycholinguistics
(e.g., Pinker). In fact, those theories are more popular then ever with
the rise of evolutionary psychology and anthropology.
Before we destroy a theory in one day and with one case, that took
years to build and that is still widely supported today, let's be
cautious. When you say the theory is a given in textbooks, well, that
is because there are many examples of it. Unless we contradict with
experimentally controlled conditions every single example of it, there
is not reason to put it to rest. That is not the way science is done.
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
(Neuro)ethology & behavioural endocrinology
On 14-Mar-04, at 5:25 PM, Geiger wrote:
> If you source and read a psychology paper by Seligman titled "On the
> generality of the laws of learning" in the psychological review vol77
> 1970,
> he defines a theory called "preparedness". According to preparedness
> dogs
> are unable to learn to yawn on command for food because they lack a
> voluntary circuit for it. Preparedness theory puts up all kinds of
> baseless
> boundaries to training. It is an old hat theory, and it is time we
> laid it
> to rest. I believe almost anything is possible, especially in a
> species as
> various as canids. My dogs never cease to amaze me.
> Preparedness is a given, when you read any training text or academic
> article. Why????? Both of my dogs now yawn well for food. The younger
> dog,
> Blade, has eclipsed Sargie now, to my surprise, though she hardly ever
> yawned before; ie her baseline levels of yawning were very very low.
> The
> footage will be available soon, when Robert Holmes is satisfied with
> the
> footage.
> I put the onus back on preparedness theory supports to PROVE
> PREPAREDNESS.
> I am running a Veterinary Behaviour Discussion Group at my home in
> Brisbane
> 7pm Tuesday 30th March for locals to view the footage, discuss the
> demise of
> preparedness, and meet the dogs. I do not expect the dogs to perform
> with a
> house full of strangers, though Blade has a better chance than Sargie.
> There
> will be plenty of video footage being shown.
> Regards,
> Jackie Perkins
> Veterinary Behaviour Consulting GOOD DOG
> Australia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:02 PM
> To: gooddog@dodo.com.au; simon@gadbois.org;
> Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
>
> Why are yawns an importent behavior to train?
>
>
From: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "Simon Gadbois" 14-MAR-2004 16:52:12.08
To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: Hydrophones
Hi all,
This may not be the right list to ask for this, and sorry for the cross
posting with the SUNET ethology list and the bioacoustics list: Just
in case some of you would be working in aquaculture, could you direct
me towards a good, relatively portable and affordable hydrophone that
could be used in the field (from a small boat) or in a relative small
aquarium. The idea is to pick up fish vocalizations, i.e., in the 50 to
2,000 Hz range. Thank you,
Regards,
S. Gadbois
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
(Neuro)ethology & behavioural endocrinology
From: IN%"gooddog@dodo.com.au" "Geiger" 15-MAR-2004 04:58:37.82
To: IN%"simon@gadbois.org" "'Simon Gadbois'", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca"
CC:
Subj: RE: Instinct vs Cognition
Preparedness theory's archtypical example of contrapreparedness was that a
dog (not a wolf) could not yawn for food. This is the one thing Seligman
hung his hat on. Now that I have laid that myth to rest, you still defend
preparedness?
That is unscientific and betrays an emotional, not scientific, attachment.
Preparedness may have grown like topsy over the years based on mistaken
assertions (eg that a dog could not yawn for food).
I guessed that preparedness followers would try to defend it or resurrect it
in some other form.
Now that the goal is kicked, they seek to move the goal posts.
It is my contention that anything can be trained, regardless of what is
functionally adaptive. The limitations that appear to occur in training are
practical and not in principle. Eg lack of rapport between the human and the
animal.
No experiment is required to contradict Seligman's preparedness; just a dog
yawning on cue, which is of course an in vivo experiment.
In fact, Sargie did not learn to yawn in the presence of food initially. We
introduced food to streamline the teaching because Staffies are an
incredibly food focused breed.
The method used to teach him to yawn would best be made the subject of a
paper.
I am not fully current with the modern versions of preparedness, but the
foundation has been seriously undermined.
Jackie Perkins
Veterinary Behaviour Consulting
Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Gadbois [mailto:simon@gadbois.org]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:11 AM
To: Geiger
Cc: Michalchik@aol.com; Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
Let's not forget that like any theories, the preparedness theory has
evolved considerably since 1970. Many people claim they managed to
train raccoons doing what Breland and Breland said was impossible
(e.g., drop a coin in a Piggy Bank). The preparedness theory does apply
very well to most species I worked with, in the sense that it basically
claims that not everything can be trained, especially if the behaviour
is not functionally adaptive to the species. Let's not forget also that
dogs are domesticated animals and many domesticated animals show
behaviours (learned or not) that their wild counterparts can't even
begin to display.
Many people will suggest that wolves (even if tamed) don't learn half
as well as dogs (with numerous exceptions, obviously) although they
tend to out-do dogs in problem solving tasks (e.g., Frank).
Based on the current and old literature on preparedness, we need a lot
more than a dog yawning on command to put that theory to rest. That is
a very behaviouristic (as in Behaviourism) statement. Preparedness is
actually very much supported by biologists in a modern version often
labelled "biological constraints on learning" where examples abound of
behaviours that we would like to teach wild animals but are so contrary
to their behavioural repertoire (instinct, innate behaviour patterns,
call them what you want) that they can't learn it. Sorry to sound
suddenly less enthusiastic, but I get very suspicious when theories are
attacked so swiftly. I actually gave what I consider a good reason why
this may not have been so difficult for a dog to associate the
"excitement yawning" with food. Seligman did not need to be right about
everything. Yet, globally, the theory today still holds, starting with
the "language instinct" movement in linguistics and psycholinguistics
(e.g., Pinker). In fact, those theories are more popular then ever with
the rise of evolutionary psychology and anthropology.
Before we destroy a theory in one day and with one case, that took
years to build and that is still widely supported today, let's be
cautious. When you say the theory is a given in textbooks, well, that
is because there are many examples of it. Unless we contradict with
experimentally controlled conditions every single example of it, there
is not reason to put it to rest. That is not the way science is done.
---
Simon Gadbois, Ph.D.
Psychology/Neuroscience
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS
Canada, B3H 4J1
902-494-8848
www.gadbois.org/academic
(Neuro)ethology & behavioural endocrinology
On 14-Mar-04, at 5:25 PM, Geiger wrote:
> If you source and read a psychology paper by Seligman titled "On the
> generality of the laws of learning" in the psychological review vol77
> 1970,
> he defines a theory called "preparedness". According to preparedness
> dogs
> are unable to learn to yawn on command for food because they lack a
> voluntary circuit for it. Preparedness theory puts up all kinds of
> baseless
> boundaries to training. It is an old hat theory, and it is time we
> laid it
> to rest. I believe almost anything is possible, especially in a
> species as
> various as canids. My dogs never cease to amaze me.
> Preparedness is a given, when you read any training text or academic
> article. Why????? Both of my dogs now yawn well for food. The younger
> dog,
> Blade, has eclipsed Sargie now, to my surprise, though she hardly ever
> yawned before; ie her baseline levels of yawning were very very low.
> The
> footage will be available soon, when Robert Holmes is satisfied with
> the
> footage.
> I put the onus back on preparedness theory supports to PROVE
> PREPAREDNESS.
> I am running a Veterinary Behaviour Discussion Group at my home in
> Brisbane
> 7pm Tuesday 30th March for locals to view the footage, discuss the
> demise of
> preparedness, and meet the dogs. I do not expect the dogs to perform
> with a
> house full of strangers, though Blade has a better chance than Sargie.
> There
> will be plenty of video footage being shown.
> Regards,
> Jackie Perkins
> Veterinary Behaviour Consulting GOOD DOG
> Australia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michalchik@aol.com [mailto:Michalchik@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 3:02 PM
> To: gooddog@dodo.com.au; simon@gadbois.org;
> Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Instinct vs Cognition
>
> Why are yawns an importent behavior to train?
>
>